The meaning of quality of care in home care settings: older lesbian and bisexual women's perspectives
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Research suggests that the experience of being a lesbian or bisexual woman influences women's interactions with health care providers, and their perception of the quality of care. Limited research to date, however, has examined how ageing and sexuality mediates women's experiences of quality, when accessing health care in the community. To fill a gap in the literature, this study investigated older lesbian and bisexual women's perspectives on the meaning of quality of care in the context of receiving home care services. This was a qualitative single case study. Sixteen participants, aged 55-72 from Ontario, Canada, participated in semi-structured interviews between 2011 and 2012. The interviews were recorded and transcribed. The interview data were analysed using iterative thematic analysis and guided by a feminist ethic of care perspective. Participants described quality of care in ways that were in line with a feminist ethic of care; that is, they wanted care providers to be responsive and attentive to their needs, to involve them in the caring process and to demonstrate respect and caring. Participants also indicated that providers' comfort with, and knowledge of, sexual diversity was important for enabling quality of care. These findings deepen our understanding of how to support quality of care for this population through changes to provider education and training, and health policy.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".